No school budget until Paxton decides another override

REGION – Paxton and Holden voters approved the Wachusett Regional School District’s $79,284,670 budget at their annual town meetings Monday night, which could give the district the four-out-of-five-town approval needed to set its fiscal 2013 budget.

But Paxton’s approval has a big string attached – it will only stand if voters approve a $181,546 Proposition 2 ½ override on June 26.

Paxton voters defeated a $366,041 override request at the polls on May 14, which would have been applied to its school assessment and municipal budget.

Two days later, the district was notified that the Senate Ways and Means Committee had increased the district’s Chapter 70 school aid by another $455,566. In an emergency session on May 17, the Wachusett Regional School District approved using the money to lower assessments to its member towns, based on school enrollment. Paxton’s share is $43,972. Holden will see an assessment reduction of $196,540, Princeton - $32,341, Rutland – $104,678 and Sterling – $78,034.

School Superintendent Thomas Pandiscio said the increase in Chapter 70 aid was “because we have four communities that are not receiving enough money in state aid” – Holden, Paxton, Princeton and Sterling.

Princeton and Sterling approved the school budget, so will have their assessment amounts lowered.

Pandiscio said the district cannot use the money to increase its operating budget by adding educational services.

At Rutland’s annual town meeting on May 18, voters approved an amendment by the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee lowering the town’s school assessment, which was illegal, Pandiscio said in a phone interview Tuesday.

“The Department of Education says Rutland’s procedure [of lowering its assessment] is against regulations, so it’s inappropriate and illegal,” Pandisicio said. He said state law declares that voters must act on the assessment as certified by the district treasurer.

“They violated that,” he said. “Town counsel should have known that; the moderator should have declared [the motion] out of order.”

The problem is, he said, that the law doesn’t give any enforcement power. In similar situations, he said, the Department of Education ruled that a school committee can accept such a rogue vote simply as a “no” vote to its budget, or avoid more town meetings by accepting the number.

“Therein lies the problem for Paxton,” he said, “because Paxton is looking for a $181,546 override, all for schools.”

If the override fails and the school committee decides to go with the Rutland number, Paxton would have to cut town services to meet its school assessment.

“So it’s really a town and school override, if the Rutland number stands,” Pandiscio said. He said he explained the impact of the Rutland action to Paxton town meeting voters Monday night, and Paxton Selectman Jack Malone concurred.

“Now Paxton needs an override to preserve their town services,” Pandiscio said.

Rutland Selectman Sheila Dibb told the school committee on May 17 that her town defeated a Prop. 2 ½ override on May 14, so is facing huge reductions in its town budget unless the district reduces its budget by more than $1 million.

“The last time Rutland supported our budget was when you opened Glenwood School – that was the last time the district added teachers,” Pandiscio said. “The only reason why we got the [added Chapter 70] money is because the other four towns paid more than they should have – and Rutland wants us to cut more.”

WRSDC chairman Duncan Leith said the school committee has the responsibility for providing the best possible education for all its approximately 7,500 students, in all five towns, and has never advocated going to the lowest town’s budget request.

Rutland WRSDC member Julianne Kelley said Joseph Becker, chairman of Rutland selectmen, made the statement, “I’m not going to get excited about an assessment reduction when we asked for a budget reduction.”

“It’s an unreasonable request that I cannot support,” Kelley said.

Pandiscio said the WRSDC will need to think about reducing the budget if they can’t get four-town approval, or wait until fall special town meetings to ask voters to accept a new school spending plan.

By law, if the district does not have a budget in place by June 30, it will operate on a monthly basis, using fiscal 2012 numbers. If no budget is approved by voters by Dec. 1, the state Commissioner of Education will determine the fiscal 2013 budget.